Party Hat = Win

But he is being beaten...

ether movie.
Y. Y. Y. ta see he can Mme up with -originel ideas.
150 years after Emancipation we still get he see a rich white man beat a black man in public.
3 paste and l image reply emitted- Clinic he_ rrs be view.
theme is wearing the party hat.
he wins

Romney won the debate. I hate that fact, but I believe it. He had so much more time to prepare, and he spat out his points faster than Obama so he actually finished before being cut off by the moderator. I still believe Obama will win the election, but he lost the debate.

Do you seriously believe the polls? You're basing this assessment off of polls which oversample Democrats by around 10%. Many pollsters are typically biased and are not very accurate up until late October.

Pollsters predicted Carter to beat Reagan for nearly the entire election. The polls only began to be accurate right before the election and Reagan ended up demolishing Carter. The same thing happened to Bush when he ran against Kerry (though the margin was much tighter). The day of the election most pollsters predicted Kerry to win.

In short, the polls aren't reliable enough or unbiased enough to mean much of anything. Many current polls have been within the margin of error and those that aren't have issues with their polling samples.

I would strongly encourage you to seek out information on your own and to not blindly accept whatever the media says.

Dude, Polls=Serious math. There is always a margin of error with polls usually a + or - 5% of accuracy. It's pretty childish to think the media are some evil monsters who want you to believe what they want. Take mexico for example, they recently had their elections. The polls said candidate X (currently winner) would win by a whooping 5%, but people were all ******* saying polls were wrong and that candidate Y was actually winning and that candidate Y had all the support and yadda yadda. When the votes were counted the margin of error was of .35%.

Who said I thought the media to be evil monsters? I'm simply saying you shouldn't blindly trust people who have been shown to mislead and misinform for various agendas. What's childish about a bit of skepticism? The truly childish thing is to not look at information for yourself and simply regurgitate what various groups with agendas telly you.

I suppose Mexico is just a great example given the large amounts of corruption and violence that aren't happening there. It would be better if you could provide me with polling and election results from Cuba because those would be even more accurate.

Polls taken months before an election are a very different thing than what's predicted on election day. You're trying to take an election day poll and compare it to polls taken months in advance.

In this current election cycle, polls have routinely over sampled certain groups by roughly 10% (I've seen as little as 6% and as high as 16%). This skewers data whether you like it or not. Also, these polls vary as to whether they sample registered voters, likely voters, etc. That too can affect accuracy. Additionally these polls are done over landlines so those without house phones and only cells (like myself) are never selected. Polling is more guesswork than an exact science.

I'm not implying that the current polls are predicting the wrong victor, I'm simply pointing out that the polls are essentially an approximation and not the score. It's rather naive to take these polls as 100% irrefutable truth (especially in light of various biases).

Wasn't election day poll, and it was a few months that they were predicting the polls. I did not mean to directly say you thought the media were evil monsters, but you made it sound like so in your comment. FYI there is corruption everywhere bro, on the US there is corruption too, you guys even have lobbies. But just to clarify a few things:
You're saying that using Mexico's elections as an example is not valid because there is a lot of corruption and violence. However, 95% of the votes were recounted 1 BY ONE after the election and gave the same result. Then again it's up to you to believe in polls which are not meant to 100% accurately predict the victor, but they will tell you the current situation with a margin of error.

How many slaves did the Emancipation Proclamation free?
Answer: zero. But you learned in school that President Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation, right? Well, the history books may have been stretching the truth. The Emancipation Proclamation was a document that officially changed nothing -- Congress had already passed laws outlawing slavery in the rebel states, which was the only territory Lincoln covered in the Proclamation. (Lincoln the politician wanted to keep border-state voters happy.)
the Proclamation technically freed slaves in another country -- the Confederacy had seceded. So what happened to the slaves in the Union? They had to wait until 1865 for the passage of the slavery-abolishing 13th Amendment, which wasn't officially ratified until after Lincoln was assassinated.
But the Emancipation Proclamation must have done something. Otherwise, why would we consider it such an important document?
While it didn't technically set anyone free, the Proclamation was part of Lincoln's strategy to demoralize the South, and it worked. Poorer Southern whites resented that they were now fighting a war to protect wealthy plantation owners who were desperate to hold onto their "property." And as word of the Proclamation spread, slaves left those plantations en masse. Their exodus even helped turn the tide in the siege of Vicksburg, a vital Union win.
Additionally, France and England, which had been secretly helping the South, could not officially recognize a country that still enslaved other human beings. Europe also could not provoke a country that, according to the Emancipation Proclamation, was now fighting slavery.
And if all that weren't enough, the Emancipation Proclamation can be credited with giving this country another state.
Beyond politics, the Emancipation Proclamation became a symbol of what the Civil War was heading toward. It was no longer about states' rights, rebellion and nullification